Budgeting smarter, not harder - Centre for Policy Development

15 April 201 5
Budgeting smarter, not harder:
The failure of long-term thinking in
the 2015 Intergenerational Report
Page 1
CONTENTS
Authors
3
Acknowledgements
3
About CPD
4
Introduction
4
1. The conversation we have: the budget problem
6
2. The conversation we want: smart and sustainable budget policy p
13
Issue One: Eligibility and means testing of the age pension
14
Issue Two: Superannuation tax concession
15
Issue Three: Broadening the GST
17
3. The conversation we need: drivers of intergenerational wellbeing
21
Childhood development – more than just participation
22
Cities – where the rubber hits the road
22
Commerce and capital – preparing for change and counting what matters
24
Climate change – budgeting for a low-carbon future
27
A Concert of Asia? – Australia’s engagement in international affairs
27
Conclusion
30
Endnotes
31
Page 2
Author
Sam Hurley
Prior to joining the CPD team as a policy analyst, Sam worked for six years as an
economist and policy analyst at the Commonwealth Treasury. Much of Sam’s work at
Treasury focused on international economic and political trends and how these shape
Australia’s long-term policy challenges. Sam had a particular focus on commodities, trade
opportunities with China and telling the story of structural reform.
Most recently, he worked at the ANU’s Crawford School of Public Policy on a project
investigating the role of trade and investment policy in Myanmar’s economic reform and
development. Sam holds degrees in commerce and law and recently completed a
Masters of International Affairs at the Australian National University.
Acknowledgments
The Centre for Policy Development (CPD) would like to thank the funders and supporters
of our Effective Government and Sustainable Economy research programs. Taken
together, these programs focus on the role of Australian Governments in responding to
twenty-first century challenges such as developing a long-term economic growth
strategy based on environmental and social health. The Intergenerational Report is
directly relevant to the research purposes of these programs. CPD would like to thank
the Graeme Wood Foundation, the Thomas Foundation, the Mullum Trust, the Fairer
Futures Fund, the PACE Foundation, the Curlew Fund, the Digger & Shirley Martin Fund,
the Hamer Family Fund, the Australian Communities Foundation, the Community and
Public Sector Union (CPSU), the CPSU State Public Service Federation Group, the
Financial Services Union, the National Union of Workers and the Victorian Council of
Social Services for their contribution to our Sustainable Economy and Effective
Government programs.
We would also like to thank the individual CPD Ideas Sustainers in the Australian
community who make regular donations towards our research. The conclusions in this
paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of CPD’s donors or
supporters. A copy of CPD’s funding policy is available on our website. Final editorial
control remains with CPD and its authors, researchers, reviewers and Research
Committee.
Page 3
About CPD
Centre for Policy Development (CPD) develops long-term policy architecture to promote
wellbeing, fairness and sustainability through our democracy, economy and society. Our
goal is to develop practical and innovative policy ideas for Australia’s long-term future
and foster a collaborative environment to make them achievable.
CPD’s core model is three-fold: we create viable ideas from rigorous, cross-disciplinary
research at home and abroad. We connect experts and stakeholders to develop these
ideas into practical policy proposals. We then work to convince government, business
and civil society of the merits of implementing these proposals.
Sign up to our newsletter at www.cpd.org.au
Page 4
Introduction
In March, Treasurer Hockey said that the 2015 Intergenerational Report (IGR) is
This report seeks to
join the conversation
on the IGR.
“an incredibly important document to start a serious conversation about the
challenges and opportunities ahead for Australia”. (Hockey 2015)
This report seeks to join that conversation on the ground staked out by the IGR. Like
The starting point for
this conversation is
that the budget
challenge we face is
bigger than the IGR
suggests – and that we
need to budget
smarter, not harder, to
meet it.
the IGR, it begins by looking backwards – surveying the scorched earth of recent budget
debates. By incorporating a highly-politicised set of projections into the IGR, the
Government sought to highlight the mess it supposedly inherited, its successes so far,
and the challenges ahead. Instead it merely refocused attention on the failings of the
2014-15 Budget, and the policy and political bungling that has contributed to prolonged
budget deficits.
The starting point for the real conversation is that the budget challenge is bigger than
the IGR suggests and we need to budget smarter – not harder – to meet it. The gulf
between the IGR’s projections and where we actually are highlights the illusory nature
of the Government’s attempted consolidation. Key drivers of the projected
improvement in finances, even if they were capable of being legislated, could not stand
the test of time.
Cuts to indexation of pensions and other parts of the safety net would entrench rather
than address disparities in living standards even as the country becomes more
prosperous. These cuts would come under major pressure as their long-term impacts
became clear. Of the policies already on the books, cuts to funding for state
expenditure on hospitals and schools and the bracket creep that accrues with taxes
set on autopilot are temporary patches rather than sustainable solutions. Overall, the
Government’s approach succeeded in being harsh on those who can afford it least and
shifted costs without solving problems. But the consolidation it forecast was illusory.
The real challenges still lie ahead.
The next stage of the conversation should be about alternatives that build on our policy
strengths and smarts rather than preying on our weaknesses. A smart approach would
be fair, balanced and sustainable. This report outlines a three-pronged framework that
will allow Australia to budget smarter and emphasises the challenges that go beyond
the narrow fiscal focus of the IGR.
The package presented in this report tackles concerns about age pension costs by reexamining means testing rather than making across the board cuts; adopts the same
approach to effectiveness and affordability on the revenue side by examining
superannuation and other tax concessions; and advocates a more efficient and
sustainable tax base by broadening the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Over time these
options, augmented by measures that take the same approach to other taxes and
transfers, could achieve the bulk of the structural adjustment required in a way that
supports equity, economic growth and wellbeing in the long term. Tackling these longstanding issues would leave the economy, budget and political system better placed to
Page 5
respond to the next generation of policy challenges, rather than obsessing over the
policy debates and politics of the past.
The serious conversation the Treasurer called for requires what the IGR failed to deliver:
a broader vision about what matters for growth and wellbeing in the long term. The IGR’s
clear focus on long-term trends in population, participation and productivity is crucial –
but it is not enough. The IGR has little to say about the wide range of forces that will
influence these drivers of growth – and less on the even broader array of issues that
will shape not only GDP but our quality of life. Its formulaic nine-page foray into
‘Preparing for the Future’ is a poor substitute for a fully-fledged discussion of what
matters to intergenerational wellbeing. This report concludes by sketching out issues
and opportunities across five interrelated policy areas that the IGR considers only in
passing: childcare, the role of cities, changes in commerce, climate change and
Australia’s international relations. These issues and many others will be pivotal to
Australia’s material wealth and our sustainable wellbeing over time. Talking about these
issues is crucial to break a cycle that deploys the rhetoric of ‘tomorrow’ without
meeting the challenges head on by sincerely making preparations today.
Page 6
1. The conversation we have: the budget problem
Rather than facilitating a conversation about the future, the 2015 IGR invites a
conversation about the policy and political failures of the present and the past. The
report sets out our long-term budget challenges – but its most vivid insights are on the
inability of successive Governments to rise to those challenges. In particular, the gap
between the IGR’s proposed policy and currently legislated scenarios emphasise the
distance between the current Government’s initial attempts at consolidation and the
sorts of policies that can deliver sustainable improvement to the budget bottom line.
Meanwhile, a more realistic assessment of the likely path of policy indicates that the
structural adjustments required to deliver balanced budgets in the medium term are far
greater than the IGR suggests.
The IGR provides the latest set of official forecasts that confirm Australia faces a
significant medium-term structural budget deficit. This has been borne out in
successive IGRs, which have projected significant (but narrowing) fiscal gaps at the
end of their forty-year outlook: -5.0 per cent of GDP (by 2042) in 2002, -3.5 per cent of
GDP (by 2047) in 2007, and -2.7 per cent of GDP (by 2050) in 2010.
The 2015 IGR projects a surplus of 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2054-55 but with a
significant catch. The report incorporates not one but three sets of projections, based
on proposed policy, currently legislated policy and previous policy. Proposed policy
reflects the Government’s policy proposals as at the December 2014 mid-year budget
update – many of which remain blocked in the Senate or have since been abandoned by
the Government itself. The currently legislated policy scenario incorporates policy that
is already on the books, including new measures that have been legislated or can be
implemented by the Government without passing new legislation. The previous policy
scenario is based on policy settings at the Government’s first mid-year budget update
in December 2013.
Of the three scenarios, only that of proposed policy delivers a surplus over the 40-year
horizon of the IGR. Based on IGR forecasts, the Government’s favoured policies would
have restored surpluses by 2019-20. More realistic scenarios suggest persistent
medium and long-term deficits. Based on currently legislated policies, the IGR projects
the deficit to narrow to 0.3 per cent of GDP by 2020-21, before gradually widening over
the longer term.
Page 7
Treasury’s recent estimates of the medium-term structural budget balance tell a
similar story. Without the proposed but unimplemented changes from the 2014-15
Budget, much of the projected structural improvement in the budget outlook
evaporates.
Rather than strengthening the case for the Government’s proposed policies, the gap
between the IGR’s proposed and currently legislated scenarios – and the questionable
accuracy of the currently legislated scenario on its own – are powerful reminders of the
limits of blunt savings measures in balancing the budget for the long term. The savings
measures proposed by the 2014-15 Budget allowed the Government to project
significant fiscal repair in in the near term, and budget balance on the longer time scale
of most interest to the IGR. Yet much of the progress has been exposed as illusory. The
consolidation path traced out in the IGR relied significantly on three things:
•
Lower indexation rates for pensions and other income support payments,
which focused the brunt of consolidation on the most vulnerable and – if it can
even be legislated – would be come under significant pressure over time.
•
Disappearing Commonwealth funding for key public services delivered by
states – in full knowledge of the higher costs that will be required to sustain
service delivery and the extreme pressure down the track for states
attempting to meet them.
•
Baked-in bracket creep, which undermines the progressivity of the tax system
and has historically been returned to taxpayers at regular intervals.
Over the next decade, the ‘proposed’ consolidation path presented in the IGR hinges on
a Government expenditure falling to 25 per cent of GDP – 1.4 percentage points lower
than projected current policy. Unlegislated changes to payment indexation rates,
freezes on the indexation of income and asset tests and revised eligibility
requirements for some benefits – in combination with the lower debt servicing costs
associated with smaller projected deficits – drive much of this fall in government
spending. Adjusting indexation arrangements is a particularly powerful tool for
projecting long-term savings, and has the political advantage of having relatively small
near-term impacts on recipients (although for those who rely most on welfare
payments, which are set at levels that some argue to be consistent with poverty, the
Page 8
impact of even small changes in payments will be high). Yet even if legislated, the
difficultly of sustaining such savings would only increase over time as their effects
become more pronounced.
The Government’s proposal to index age pensions to the consumer price index (CPI)
rather than by reference to a combination of CPI and average male weekly earnings is
particularly relevant in the demographic context of the IGR. Based on the IGR’s
projections, combined with adjustments to indexation of assets test thresholds and
changes to deeming rates for the income test, this measure would reduce government
expenditure by 0.3 per cent of GDP by 2024-25. However, these savings are premised
on a safety net that becomes systematically less generous to recipients as society
becomes more prosperous over time, with pensions fixed in real terms at current levels
rather than growing over time to reflect rising productivity and living standards across
the broader community. This would have seen the base rate of the pension fall from
around 28 per cent of average male weekly earnings in 2014-15 to around 24 per cent
in 2027-28 (Whiteford 2015), and significantly further if revised indexation
arrangements were maintained into the long term.
Adjusting
indexation
arrangements is a
particularly
powerful tool for
projecting longterm savings...
Yet if the result is a
safety net that
becomes
progressively more
out of step with
social
expectations, the
savings achieved in
this manner are
unsustainable.
As with measures to index other social security payments to CPI, reducing pension
indexation rather than engaging in more comprehensive reforms to better target or
reduce the overall reliance on government transfers shifts the burden of fiscal
adjustment squarely on to those who can least afford it, while doing little to address
underlying causes. Yet if the result is a safety net that becomes increasingly out of
step with social expectations, the savings achieved in this manner are unsustainable.
Any savings delivered in the interim come at the expense of masking the need for
dialogue and reforms that go beyond merely tinkering with payment rates.
To the extent that these and a raft of other proposed but unimplemented policies are
included in the 2015-16 Budget baseline, the near and long-term fiscal outlook will
continue to vastly overstate the extent of improvement that has been made.
Significantly, policies and measures with questionable long-term staying power also
feature prominently in the IGR’s ‘currently legislated’ scenario – implying that the
overall consolidation task will be harder than even this middle scenario suggests.
Page 9
Large cuts to Commonwealth funding for state government expenditure on public
hospitals are a prominent and contentious example. Major projected savings in health
expenditure are premised on Budget measures that would ensure Commonwealth
funding to states that does not grow in line with historical trends or respond to
forecasts for rising health care costs. The IGR forecasts that the Government’s current
policy settings will see health expenditure fall from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 2014-5 to 4
per cent by 2024-25, rather than increasing to 4.4 per cent of GDP under previous
policy. This reflects the immediate reversal of earlier funding arrangements designed to
determine efficient prices for hospital services and broaden access to preventative
health, and moves to make real per person Commonwealth funding for public hospitals
constant from 2017-18.
This saving works precisely because the actual cost of hospital services is expected to
rise at a much faster rate – a trend that, along with broader costs growth in the health
system, will continue to be a key driver of longer-term fiscal pressures in Australia and
many other advanced economies. It lowers projected Commonwealth outlays by
assuming costs over and above inflation can and will be borne by state budgets. Yet
there is no agreement in place as to how states will carry the load in the absence of
major cuts to services or new revenue sources, and no realistic indication that the full
‘savings’ to the Commonwealth suggested by these measures can actually be imposed
or sustained. Similar changes for funding to states for public schools mean projected
increases in funding forecasts (beyond those associated with inflation and higher
enrolments) have been curtailed, shifting more of the burden of further growth in costs
to states.
Rather than representing a genuine long-term saving, these measures simply shift the
burden onto states without providing any sustainable solutions about funding the rising
costs of public services. In the case of health, the IGR methodology recognises this
limitation by projecting that Commonwealth healthcare costs will revert to growth at
historical rates observed on a ‘whole of government’ basis from the 2030s. This means
that the IGR does not just fail to account for the existing impact of demographic
pressures on state budgets. Rather, it projects an ‘improvement’ that relies heavily on
shifting even more of these costs away from the Commonwealth and onto the states
over time.
Page 10
On the revenue side, most of the recovery that contributes to the narrowing of
‘currently legislated’ deficits in the medium term depends on unmitigated bracket
creep. Tax receipts are projected to rise from 22.0 per cent of GDP in 2014-15 to 23.9
per cent in 2021-22 (at which point they are assumed to be capped). According to the
IGR, this will be “largely driven by bracket creep”, which occurs when rising incomes
push an increasing portion of taxpayers’ incomes into higher income tax brackets over
time, increasing average (and sometimes marginal) tax rates over time.
Left
unchecked over the next decade, this would see over two million additional taxpayers in
the second-highest tax income bracket (between $80,000 and $180,000) by 2024-25
(Tax Discussion Paper, 2015).
Bracket creep has been leaned on heavily in recent years to prop up revenues that have
been hit by weakening indirect tax collections, supressed capital gains tax receipts and
a return to lower levels of company tax receipts following the mining boom. Historically,
bracket creep has been returned to taxpayers at regular intervals by increasing the
thresholds at which marginal tax rates apply. Allowing bracket creep to drive the
majority of the recovery in revenues over the next decade by default would raise
serious equity and efficiency concerns. It works against the progressivity of the tax
system by disproportionately impacting those on lower and middle incomes, who face
steeper increases in average tax rates than high income earners. It also increases the
overall reliance of revenues on an income tax base that imposes greater economic
costs (including by discouraging participation) and will be shrinking in relative terms
over time as the working age population narrows. These costs would have to be
weighed against the economic and social impacts of revenue measures that could
replace bracket creep, as well as the political prospects for their implementation.
The IGR assumes that bracket creep will be paid back from 2021-22 by capping tax to
GDP at 23.9 per cent of GDP. The reality is that there will be substantial pressure on
future Governments to offset at least some of the impact of fiscal drag before then.
While some of the difference could be made up by faster recovery in other revenue
sources over time, this would increase the overall consolidation task in the interim.
This analysis suggests three crucial reference points for the conversation inspired by
the IGR.
The first is that on a more realistic assessment of the future path of policy, the
structural adjustments we face over the next decade are bigger than the IGR’s
projections imply. The Government has already abandoned key planks of the ‘proposed
policy’ scenario due to entrenched political opposition. Key sources of support for the
‘currently legislated’ consolidation path, including severely curtailed public hospital
funding and unmitigated bracket creep, will be extremely difficult to sustain as the IGR
optimistically projected over the medium term. This means that the remaining
adjustments needed to return the budget to surplus are much steeper than the
currently legislated scenario allows, with the deficit likely to be closer to 1 per cent of
GDP in 2021-22.
Page 11
A range of other factors could make the adjustment even more challenging. These
include:
• The sustainability of other currently legislated policies: While the slower indexation
of aged pensions has not been implemented, other changes made by current and
former Governments (including the indexation of FTB and Australia’s aid budget to
CPI) are already incorporated into the budget baseline. Maintaining zero real growth
in payments as broader living standards increase will be challenging in the medium
term, particularly with key parts of the safety net (such as support for the
unemployed) already widely regarded as inadequate.
• Slippage in policy implementation or cost: To take one example, the Commonwealth
Government is responsible for a substantial portion of any cost overrun in the
rollout of the NDIS over the medium-term.
• New spending commitments or tax breaks: Existing and new policy priorities are
likely to place additional pressure on expenditure and revenues into the medium
term. The Government has already flagged increased expenditure on childcare and
early childhood education and small business tax cuts as priorities for the 2015-16
Budget.
• Economic factors: Weaker economic growth, a slower-than-expected return to full
employment or persistently lower commodity prices could continue to put additional
pressure on the budget bottom line on a year-to-year basis. Between May 2014 and
December 2014 alone, changes in economic parameters (including further
weakness in the terms of trade and slower wages growth) led the forecast 2014-15
deficit to blow out by 30 per cent, and worsened the cumulative four-year deficit by
more than $40 billion.
On top of all this, the budget target is likely to go beyond simply eliminating the deficit.
Consistent with its predecessor, the Government’s fiscal strategy calls for surpluses
on average over the medium-term. A specific target of attaining a surplus of 1 per cent
of GDP by 2023-24 was outlined in the 2014-15 Budget. Meeting this target would
require legislating and sustaining expenditure and revenue measures that substantially
outperform the Government’s unlegislated ‘proposed policy’ scenario in the mediumterm.
The second point is that the policies employed by successive Governments have been
worryingly ill-suited to achieving sustainable consolidation, as opposed to merely
projecting it. While the Government intended to highlight the contribution its policies
have made ‘repairing’ the budget, the clearest point emerging from the IGR is that much
of the supposed progress has been illusory. Rather than entrenching sustainable
savings, many of the key drivers of consolidation merely bake in fiscal challenges that
will have to be resolved by future Governments (and taxpayers), without addressing
underlying problems or engaging with the underlying policy issues. This was an attempt
at consolidation that puts the conversations we need into the too-hard basket,
electing instead for blunt measures that hit hardest on the most vulnerable.
Page 12
The third is that budget reform is not simply about being tough or fair; it is about being
smart. It is one thing to frame a conversation around whether it is fair or unfair to
premise fiscal consolidation on a widening gulf in living standards between the average
earner and pensioners, carers and the unemployed, or on paying States less to deliver
key public services despite rising costs. Fairness aside, it has clearly not been a smart
or effective approach. On the contrary, the political infeasibility of proffered
approaches to consolidation and failure to deal purposively with major structural divers
of our budget problems merely exacerbate the vulnerabilities that a structurally weak
budget position creates. Australia is still well short of a true budget emergency – but
our inability to deliver the required fiscal adjustment is prolonging our vulnerability to
global shocks. In the meantime, these failures have further compromised the politics of
future reform in key areas of government expenditure and Commonwealth-State
relations, worsening an already complicated environment for major reforms.
The Government’s initial approach also moved away from one of the traditional
strengths of Australia’s budget conversation and policy design; the importance of
designing a targeted and effective social safety net. Effective targeting of expenditure
through means testing and eligibility requirements has been one of the hallmarks of
Australia’s safety net, which runs at a cost that is much lower a share of the economy
than in most other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
countries. This has been achieved by engaging with complicated questions of priorities,
policy design and politics to ensure that outlays are directed to those that need them
the most, while limiting adverse impacts on incentives to participate, rather than simply
by being less generous to the least well off.
Page 13
2. The conversation we want: smart and sustainable budget
policy
By emphasising the gap between proposed and currently legislated policies, the IGR
also issued an explicit challenge to the Opposition and policymaking community: fill it.
A conversation that moves beyond the failings of the last Budget and openly discusses
the alternatives will be particularly crucial this year, as major reviews of the tax system
and Federation coalesce to open up far-reaching opportunities for reform. It is vital that
policymakers seize the opportunity to turn good ideas into good policy – and to bring
forward new ideas for even more far-reaching change.
In this context, CPD suggests three priorities that should guide Australia’s
conversation about, and approach to, the package of measures needed to complete
the task of strengthening Commonwealth finances in a manner that is conducive to
longer-term priorities.
Effectiveness: The first priority should be to ensure government payments are
targeted according to need and effectiveness across all major categories of
government spending. This will ensure budget repair on the expenditure side that is
consistent with our values and plays to our strengths and our smarts in policy design.
Central to this approach is engaging with more complicated questions of means testing
and eligibility for payments like the age pension, rather than relying on broad cuts to
payments that force the burden of adjustment onto the very citizens whom the system
is designed to protect.
Fiscal repair guided
by these three
priorities would
prepare Australia
for the future
without
undermining
features of our tax
and transfer
system that work
well, overlooking
aspects of the
status quo that
counteract longterm goals, or
entrenching
inequitable
distortions that will
have to be
reversed.
Balance: The second priority is to extend this measured approach to the revenue side
of the budget. This includes ensuring that tax concessions or loopholes that
disproportionately benefit the most well off at significant fiscal cost are a crucial part
of the discussion for improving the structural position of the budget. Such concessions
serve other important (although not always consistent) policy purposes. But there is no
reason that the costs they incur should not be examined as carefully as those
stemming from direct government expenditure. This should include careful
assessments of effectiveness and distributional implications.
Sustainability: The third priority is seizing broader opportunities to prepare and
implement longer-term reforms to promote adequacy, efficiency and sustainability in
the revenue base over time. This requires modernising and strengthening Australia’s
tax base, which is insufficient to meet expenditure priorities that (as the IGR shows)
are rising over time, and inefficient and unsustainable in its antiquated bias towards
income-based taxes.
Fiscal consolidation guided by these three priorities would prepare Australia for the
future without undermining features of our tax and transfer system that work well,
overlooking aspects of the status quo that counteract long-term goals, or entrenching
inequitable distortions that will have to be reversed. There is a package of policies that
Page 14
accord with these priorities and would make a strong start towards the required fiscal
consolidation in a smart, purposeful way.
Guided by these priorities, this section discusses three main policy issues that must be
at the forefront of any discussion about a medium-term solution to the fiscal pressures
outlined in the IGR. These are eligibility for the aged pension, superannuation tax
concessions and the GST.
Issue one: eligibility and means testing of the age pension
The IGR emphasises that the cost of sustaining age and service pensions is growing –
but this should be seen in its broader context. Based on current policy, spending on
pensions will reach 3.6 per cent of GDP by 2054-55 as the age structure of the
population changes. Even at these higher rates, Australia’s public expenditure on
pensions would remain extremely low compared to almost all other countries in the
OECD. This reflects the relative moderateness and extensive means testing of our age
pension compared to overseas models that base pension benefits on prior rates of
earnings.
Australia should strive to strengthen the pension system by building on existing
strengths in eligibility and means testing, rather than simply cutting what is already a
basic level of financial support for those relying solely on the full age pension. Part of
the equation is gradually shifting the retirement age, which on current legislation will
increase to 67 by 2023. As well as reflecting greater life expectancy these changes
will make a contribution (albeit a relatively small one) to participation and GDP, as well
as to income tax receipts.
The key focus for further savings should be reviewing current asset and income test
arrangements, including measures to remove or modify the current exemption of the
family home from the assets test, lower thresholds at which other assets trigger lower
Page 15
pension payments and increase the rate at which payments taper off past these
thresholds. Variations on this approach have been advocated by a wide range of
reviews, from the Henry Tax Review to the Commission of Audit. Pensioners who do not
own property are far more vulnerable financially than those who do, but current
arrangements make no distinction between their eligibility to receive the age pension.
The exclusion of the primary residence from means testing (apart from triggering a
lower threshold for other aspects of the means test) means that older Australians with
very valuable housing and other assets can continue to draw a full or part pension (and
associated concessions) with no requirement to mobilise savings bound up in their
housing health. As the IGR noted, home-owning pensioners can continue to receive
partial payment with non-primary residence assets up to $771,750 for single
homeowners, and $1,145,500 combined for couples who own homes.
There are various measures available that would ensure savings made through pension
reforms are made at the expense of those with the greatest private means and living
standards rather than focusing the burden of adjustment on those who are most
vulnerable. These include changing means testing to include the family home above a
high threshold or increasing the rate at which pension payments taper off for recipients
with assets and incomes above given thresholds. In contrast, reducing the base rate of
the pension disproportionately impacts those who have few or no other assets. It
should be understood that these changes would be unlikely to play a significant role in
near-to-medium term consolidation, given political constraints to making changes that
impact the current generation of pensioners. Incremental implementation is vital.
Nevertheless, delay in doing so is unthinkable. Changes will become more difficult over
time as the costs of the system and relative number of recipients grows.
A related point is that, notwithstanding opportunities to make savings through tighter
eligibility and means testing arrangements, opportunities to make extensive savings by
targeting the pension system alone are limited. This does not mean that payments
should simply be cut; rather, that there should be an increased emphasis on delivering
results through interconnected parts of the retirement income system. In particular,
this includes reform to ensure a superannuation system that delivers on its promise to
support adequate retirement incomes and reduce reliance on the aged pension system.
Issue two: superannuation tax concessions
The superannuation system is a cornerstone of Australia’s approach to retirement
incomes. However, its failure to deliver a lasting reduction in the share of the population
drawing full or part pensions suggests it is not delivering returns that are
commensurate with its high costs.
Treasury’s yearly Tax Expenditures Statement shows that tax breaks that are provided
to support superannuation are the most costly of Australia’s extensive array of tax
expenditures. Significant tax concessions on super contributions and investment
earnings, as well as tax-free treatment of superannuation income streams in the
pension stage, are key features of the system. These concessions help to facilitate the
accumulation of larger balances and provide additional incentives to contribute to
Page 16
super for those who can afford to do so. However, they also forego a significant
amount of income tax revenue (albeit in a manner that aims to partially offset this cost
by reducing reliance on government-funded age pensions).
Ensuring that this expensive investment in superannuation through the tax system is
achieving strong results for retirement incomes and the budget is as crucial as
targeting effectiveness of direct government expenditures. But as the 2014 Financial
System Inquiry (FSI) emphasised, super tax concessions are not well targeted towards
improving retirement incomes for those most likely to rely on government support.
They also create distortions that impact upon the adequacy and efficiency of the rest
of the tax system (FSI 2014). In particular, the flat 15 per cent tax on super
contributions up to a certain threshold (as well as options for securing tax-free income
streams in the pension stage) make superannuation a particularly attractive savings
and wealth management vehicle for high income earners who would otherwise face
much higher marginal tax rates on their income. The FSI highlighted earlier Treasury
estimates that more than half of superannuation tax concessions accrue to top twenty
per cent of income earners, heavily favouring those who have highest means to provide
for their own retirement. This is compounded by the fact that the much smaller relative
contribution to those with low incomes and retirement savings indirectly facilitating
greater reliance on the aged pension and greater strain on government spending.
These are widely recognised. Alternatives for refining the structure of concessions
have been a focal point in calls for budget reform. While for political and behavioural
reasons the savings to the budget from reforms to concessions are likely to be much
smaller than the total cost reflected in Tax Expenditures Statement estimates, even
relatively modest reforms could make a major contribution to fiscal consolidation. The
Grattan Institute has estimated that reducing the threshold for concessional taxation
of contributions to $10,000 per year and taxing super income streams at 15 per cent in
the withdrawal phase would increase revenue by up to $9 billion per year (Daley 2013).
A recent proposal by the Australian Greens to tax super contributions according to a
progressive scale (that preserved marginal tax rate concessions for super
Page 17
contributions across all income levels) would raise $3.4 billion per year (The Australian
Greens 2015).
Any reforms to taxation arrangements could be augmented by further gradual
increases in the superannuation preservation age (currently 60) towards consistency
with the age of pension eligibility. This would further reduce reliance on age pensions
and create additional revenue from higher participation. Other key priorities for reform
include achieving greater competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry to
lower fees (these counteract accumulation) and facilitating the development of
comprehensive retirement income products that enable superannuation balances to
support a more reliable stream of retirement incomes.
Issue three: Broadening the GST
Reform to the GST is inevitable. In the long term, this means increasing the rate,
shifting to more comprehensive coverage, or actively moving away from reliance on a
narrowing GST as a key feature of the tax system and federal financial relations.
Muddling through with a GST that becomes more distortionary and less adequate, and
represents a major impediment to broader tax reform, is not a sustainable option.
Continued structural weakening of the GST merely imposes strains on other parts of
the tax system, and indirectly creates pressure on government expenditures and public
services that are relied on disproportionately by lower income households.
The introduction of the GST recognised the need to shift the tax mix towards broader
tax bases such as consumption and leveraged an opportunity to replace economically
and administratively inefficient taxes levied by the States. However, indirect taxes as a
share of the total tax receipts has declined significantly since the early years of the
Reform to the GST
GST. In part, this reflects the fact that several large components of consumption that
is inevitable. In the
the GST does not apply to –including education, health and fresh food – have grown as a
long term, this
share of overall consumption expenditure. In total, according to the Government’s Tax
means increasing
the rate, shifting to
Discussion Paper, the GST only applies to around 47 per cent of Australia’s national
consumption under current arrangements.
more
This is part of a broader trend, clearly highlighted in the IGR projections, of Australia’s
comprehensive
tax mix evolving in the wrong direction, towards a greater reliance on distortionary
coverage, or
income taxes levied on mobile and narrowing tax bases and away from taxes on less
actively moving
mobile bases such as land and consumption. This means that the overall impacts
away from reliance
imposed by the tax system are becoming more negative over time due to the higher
on a narrowing GST
as a key feature of
‘marginal excess burden’ imposed for each dollar of revenue raised for other major tax
bases such as stamp duty and income tax.
the tax system and
Reforming the GST is one of few plausible options for counteracting this trend and
federal financial
contributing to the longer-term adequacy, efficiency and sustainability of the revenue
relations.
base.
Page 18
Raising the rate of GST as it currently applies would sharpen existing distortions
caused by different treatment of exempt and non-exempt categories of expenditure,
without reversing the narrowing of the GST base over time as the composition of
expenditure changes. Alternatively, selectively broadening the application of the GST
would work against these trends. Treasury’s tax expenditure data suggest the nonapplicability of the GST to the six biggest classes of exempt expenditure reduces
revenues by almost $20 billion per year. Imposing the GST across some of these
expenditures would support revenues and broaden the overall tax base, as well as
reducing distortions and complexities associated with only applying consumption taxes
to some goods and services.
Significantly, because the wealthiest households have the highest absolute levels of
expenditure on GST-exempt goods and services, most of the additional revenue raised
by broadening the GST would flow from those with higher incomes. This means that
even with measures to fully compensate lower income earners and to offset increased
costs in public services like health and education, the revenue raised from a broader
GST could make a significant contribution to strengthening the budget in the mediumterm. Alternatively, additional GST revenues could be used to fund the removal of highly
inefficient state taxes such as stamp duty, increasing the efficiency of the tax system
overall.
Page 19
Broadening the GST will be challenging both as a matter of politics and policy design.
The regressive nature of the GST, and in particular application of the GST to food and
necessities that make up a greater share of the expenditure and earnings of low
income households, has justifiably been a major contention in arguments about the GST
for more than two decades.
It will continue to be an extremely difficult issue for any Government to tackle. There
are legitimate concerns about the extent to which compensation to lower income
earners would be sustained over time, the impact of price changes on demand for
previously exempt goods and services, the fiscal interaction with government
subsidies in areas such as health and education and the broader issue of achieving a
sustainable compact between the Commonwealth and States on the distribution of the
GST and the delivery of key public services.
Notwithstanding these concerns, broadening the GST is the most plausible option for
reorienting the tax base to support growth in the economy and living standards over
the long term and to preserve policy priorities (including transfer payments and public
services) fundamental to Australian values. Political and administrative barriers to
alternatives such as greater reliance on land tax mean that more appealing options
from a tax efficiency perspective are likely to prove even tougher than broadening the
GST. Defaulting towards greater reliance on existing tax bases through higher personal
or company income tax rates would work against the longer-term efficiency and
sustainability of the tax system.
When considered in isolation the distributional impacts of broadening the GST should
be concerning. However, considered in broader context, the case against broadening
the GST on this front is less clear cut. While the distributional concerns about the
regressive nature of the GST are real, so too are the distributional impacts of a less
efficient tax mix and typical ‘savings measures’ like bracket creep, social safety net
cuts and reduced expenditure on essential public services. Alone, a broader GST would
Page 20
make after-tax incomes less equal. However, overall impact of the new GST would
continue to be dominated by support to gross incomes from cash transfers, and the
significant impact of progressive income taxation and ‘transfers in kind’ from
Government in the form of service provision, all of which in combination have a
substantial positive effect on income equality (McAuley, 2013).
Additional GST
revenue used for expenditure on services like health, education and housing would
contribute to the social wage, partially offsetting the detrimental impact (and reducing
the need for direct cash compensation).
Adequate and sustained compensation through other parts of the tax and transfer
system can offset the larger relative impact of a broader GST on lower and middle
income earners, while winding back (what is in absolute terms) the very large tax break
for the best-off households. This is consistent with the principle that what matters in
assessing equity and progressivity is not the isolated impact of any one measure (such
as the GST) but the overall impact of the entire tax and transfer system. As the Henry
Tax Review emphasised, personal income tax rates and transfer payments can be
expected to shoulder most of the load in ensuring that the system remains progressive.
In this context, the biggest obstacle to broadening the GST is not the inherent
regressivity of the tax viewed when viewed in isolation. The chief impediment is the
concern that compensatory changes to tax thresholds and transfer payments to
protect the living standards of low-income earners could be wound back by future
Governments, either as a matter of fiscal expediency or ideological malevolence. This
concern is justifiable and made more acute by contemporary approaches to
consolidation, particularly the latest attempt to balance the budget by driving a wedge
between the living standards of welfare recipients and wage earners. But it cannot be
overcome by simply refusing to talk about the issue.
Unlike the Henry Tax Review, the Government’s 2015 Tax Discussion Paper was
permitted to consider the evolution of the GST and options for reform. While refusing to
rule any particular reforms in or out at this stage of the White Paper process, Treasurer
Joe Hockey was at pains to highlight the likelihood that the states would not agree to
GST changes (Hockey 2015b), while Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen immediately ruled
out any prospects of future changes to the GST under a Labor Government (ABC 2015)
The challenge for policy makers, at State and Commonwealth level, should not be
finding new ways to deny or delay an inevitable conversation about the GST. They must
do the hard work of envisaging and implementing a package of tax reforms that can
accommodate a bigger role for the GST, or developing and advocating appropriate
alternatives.
If Australians want to budget smarter, not harder, the GST reform conversation can no
longer be avoided. Avoiding it simply allows fiscal problems to accumulate while
creating new barriers to change and denies a broader package of tax reform with a set
of measures and trade-offs that present clear and more compelling choices to the
electorate. The electorate must be involved in the conversation about how to balance
competing priorities: it cannot do so with key issues shielded from the discussion.
Page 21
3. The conversation we need: drivers of intergenerational wellbeing
The gap between the current trajectory of the budget and a more sustainable path for
longer-term finances has been the focus of the conversation on the IGR. As discussed
The budget deficit
above, it is significant. But it is not the biggest or most significant shortfall we face in
our long-term policy making. The most worrying deficit is between the national
is not the biggest
conversation envisaged by the 2015 IGR and the actual conversation we need to have
or most significant
about our longer term wellbeing. There are a series of interconnected policy issues that
deficit we face in
we should be considering in order to prepare our economy and society to meet the full
our long-term
policymaking. Our
real deficit is in our
national
conversation.
range of long-term challenges awaiting us
This is a deficit embodied perfectly by the 2015 IGR. The report was narrowed
significantly in substance and in scope compared to its 2010 predecessor. The
previous IGR not only considered long-term demographic and fiscal trends, but placed
these in the broader context of the economic, social and environmental factors and
policy challenges that were relevant to sustaining our intergenerational wellbeing. The
2015 IGR replaced this discussion with a formulaic nine-page foray titled ‘Preparing for
the future’ that totalled less than 10 per cent of the document. This section of the IGR,
inasmuch as it discusses Australia's future, lacks policy innovation and foresight.
‘Preparing for the future’ primarily covered old ground on participation, business
regulation and sketched out upcoming reviews of competition policy, the tax system
and the Federation. It is a piecemeal and superficial description of well-trodden policy
paths. The Government might well respond that it is reasonable to expect these
reviews, rather than the IGR, to provide a fully-fleshed out vision of the future in
specific policy areas. However, if the Government’s recently-released Tax Discussion
Paper is anything to go by, they are more likely to focus on established trends and longstanding policy options than to facilitate far-sighted debates. They are also likely to
skirt important but politically inconvenient issues like climate change and resource rent
taxation.
The narrowed focus of the IGR cut firmly against Treasury’s long-standing emphasis on
taking a broader perspective on the determinants of wellbeing – including the
importance of social, civic, and environmental factors that can sustain wellbeing in the
long run (see for example Gorecki and Kelly (2012) and Parkinson (2011)). Initiatives
that could have played a key role in sustaining this broader conversation about the
future – such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Measures of Australia’s Progress
program and the National Sustainability Council – have been scrapped as part of
attempts to reduce the near-term budget deficit. The IGR cannot be expected to make
up the shortfall – but it should be expected to play a larger and more impactful role,
especially given changes elsewhere. Instead it focuses the weight of its forty-year
projections not on the distant future but on the budget politics of today. Which begs
the questions – exactly where is the wide-ranging conversation we were meant to have
and who will provide it?
The final section of this report sets out some key policy areas and challenges that will
occupy an increasingly prominent place in our policy debates and demand attention in
any serious conversation about Australia’s future. These are childhood development
Page 22
and community wellbeing, cities and connectivity, commerce and capital, climate
change, and the concert of Asia. Several of these challenges were touched on briefly in
the IGR. An extended discussion of any or all of them would help to start a conversation
far more important than the one the IGR delivered. Each challenge bears heavily on the
population-participation-productivity framework that drives the IGR’s outlook for longterm economic growth. They will each be central to broader determinants of wellbeing.
Most importantly, each of these challenges generates complicated trade-offs and
choices that will have to be considered and made for Australia to thrive in the twentyfirst century.
Childhood development – more than just participation
The 2015 IGR turned repeatedly to childcare, largely in the context of increasing female
workforce participation. Treasurer Joe Hockey described women as “the second
underutilised workforce army” after the aged. The female labour force participation
rate has increased from around 46 per cent to almost 59 per over the last three
decades. The gap between female and male participation is forecast to narrow over the
next decade – albeit not rapidly enough to meet the G20 target of reducing the gender
gap in participation by 25 per cent by 2025. Significantly, of the gains made in Australia,
nearly all of the increase has been in part-time rather than full-time work, while
historical and contemporary gender gaps in participation have led to entrenched
disparities in retirement savings adequacy between men and women.
The IGR takes up these issues by emphasising the role of childcare in supporting
participation and the Government’s commitment to addressing barriers to the quality,
availability, flexibility and affordability of childcare as a part of its participation agenda.
Despite significant support for childcare through the tax and transfer system, a
majority of families with children under five experience difficulties with the availability
and affordability of childcare (Stewart et al, 2015). However, as the recent Productivity
Commission report on Childcare and Early Childhood Learning indicated, decisions on
whether and how much to work are determined by a broad range of work, family and
financial factors (Productivity Commission 2015), beyond options for childcare. The PC
cautioned that its proposed reforms – which the Government has indicated it is
carefully considering ahead of a childcare policy package for the 2015-16 Budget –
would have a relatively small impact on workforce participation if adopted. It estimated
that the number of working mothers would increase by around 16,000 (or 1.4 per cent)
based on its reforms. As a result, the estimated positive first-round impact on GDP
from increased output increased output is low – 0.1 per cent in 2013-14. The PC notes
this figure is supressed due to the “comparatively low” average productivity and value
of workforce contribution of the lower and middle-income families whose participation
would be supported most by the proposed changes (PC 2015, p.39).
This raises more questions about the usefulness of GDP in measuring wellbeing than it
does on the merits of expanded investment in childcare – a shortcoming noted by the
Productivity Commission in its report. GDP captures the impact of increased
participation on output, but not the individual and societal value of a wide range of non-
Page 23
market activities that may be reduced as people move into work. This means that even
though increasing participation through expanded childcare boosts GDP, the overall
impact on welfare and wellbeing will be smaller than GDP-based calculations suggest. It
is also true that focusing narrowly on the immediate impact on participation and GDP
does not capture the broader long-term benefits of investing in childhood development.
The longer-term benefits for Australia's human and social capital from having an
effective policy framework for childhood development – including better access to
childcare and ancillary support packages, adequate maternity/paternity leave and high
quality early childhood learning – are significant, as are the flow-on effects from helping
to sustain long-term workforce attachment for parents. In both cases the positive
impacts are immediate as well as intergenerational. This is particularly significant for
children, families and communities that are disadvantaged or at risk. These are benefits
that a narrow focus on participation and GDP can only begin to capture.
This suggests that one of the analytical strengths of the IGR – the analytical clarity and
tractability of the PPP framework – is also a shortcoming, at least in terms of its ability
to guide the broader conversation the Treasurer wants to have. In this case, the focus
on participation can send a clear message about the longer-term impacts on the
budget and GDP. But is also begs crucial questions about how we should weigh these
imperatives against a much broader set of considerations about wellbeing and welfare:
the ability of parents to spend time with children, for childcare and education to break
cycles of disadvantage and barriers to development that weaken communities and for
ability of government policy to support the skills, social bonds and community wellbeing,
These, while less amenable for traditional economic measurement, are much more
immediate and tractable in the lives of the people the Treasurer wants to engage than
intergenerational projections of workforce participation. The conversation needs to
feature both – but the IGR systematically strips back the discussion of the broader
economic, social, civic and environmental drivers of intergenerational wellbeing that
were included as a starting point in the last report. The IGR not a perfect vehicle for the
full discussion of all of these issues but it would have been a good place to start.
Cities – where the rubber hits the road
Despite the entrenched focus of the IGR on the “three P’s” at a whole-of-economy level,
it has little to say about the places where the rubber hits the road, literally and
metaphorically – in Australia’s cities. Cities that will accommodate the large net
migration flows are a crucial element of the IGR’s strong long-term outlook for growth in
population and GDP. Cities are where the vast majority of this population is physically
connected to opportunities to participate in workplaces and markets, producing around
80 per cent of Australia’s output. It is in cities where the forces of agglomeration,
specialisation and technological progress interact to drive productivity growth,
supported by services sectors that connect Australia to the opportunities and
efficiencies associated with global trade.
Page 24
Cities are also where concerns about access to property markets are most pressing.
This issue has become a key touchstone in public debates about intergenerational
wellbeing. Entrenched supply-side failures in large cities have contributed to inequities
in access to housing (and associated wealth) that are pronounced and likely to be
prolonged. Price pressures in key markets have also complicated the task for
macroeconomic policymakers, particularly the Reserve Bank of Australia, in supporting
economic growth without entrenching vulnerabilities associated with high asset prices.
The 2015 IGR conspicuously overlooks the importance of broader aspects of wellbeing
that are largely driven by cities. These include the amenity of natural and built
environments, the importance of civic participation, the intrinsic value in social
connectedness and the benefit of innovation and creativity hubs.
All this means that while regional areas, communities and industries have an important
role to play, cities are where our ability to respond to intergenerational pressures and
opportunities will be tested immediately and acutely. To highlight three areas in which
cities will play a leading role:
•
Addressing climate change and carbon abatement: Cities are major
contributors to CO2 emissions and are likely to face key threats to
infrastructure and quality of life from long-term climate change. They are also
where opportunities for developments in energy sources, utilities, zoning,
transport, construction and design that can have a major influence on the
future path of carbon emissions. This is likely to be particularly important in an
Australian context where prospects for national leadership and action on this
issue have stalled.
•
Developing new models of governance and demographic participation: Large,
dense populations, multiplicity of community groups and the opportunities to
experiment with different governance models at local government level mean
that cities can play a key role as hubs of increased civic participation and
springboards for democratic renewal.
•
Addressing entrenched disadvantage: Cities will continue to be a key site of
tension between opportunities from globalisation and technological change,
and the economic and social disadvantage that can go hand-in-hand with
disruption. Even as concentration of knowledge and innovation in leading
urban areas becomes increasingly crucial to growth, addressing spatial (and
intergenerational) pockets of pronounced disadvantage and isolation that
manifests in terms of physical infrastructure, economic opportunity and
social cohesion will be key to spreading prosperity across the community.
This poses key challenges for urban planning and the design and delivery of
social services. The challenge of breaking down economic and social
fragmentation in cities will have to be addressed in parallel with urban-rural
disparities, where issues of connectivity (in terms of physical infrastructure
and technology), the spatial distribution of population, production and
Page 25
disadvantage, and environmental pressures associated with traditional
modes of economic activity are equally complex and pressing.
Commerce and capital – preparing for change and counting what
matters
The IGR touches on the profound impacts that technological change is having on
patterns of business, production and consumption and the implications for Australia’s
Government, economy and society. These range from the implications of cutting-edge
research and innovation on the future of employment and productivity growth, to the
potential for new technologies to revolutionise government service delivery. In remarks
before and following the launch of the IGR Treasurer Hockey was particularly keen to
highlight the potential opportunities, and also the disruptive impact, of technological
change – from driverless cars to the impact of internet commerce on the future of the
GST (Hockey 2015c).
While the IGR touches on each of these issues in isolation, the broader trends raise
fundamental questions about how effectively Australia can participate and compete in
a twenty-first century trade and business environment. Three issues are particularly
crucial:
•
Participation in global value chains: Lower trade barriers and new transport
and communications technology have led to the development of global
supply chains that are the new defining feature of international trade in both
goods and services. The mining boom has seen Australia bucking a global
trend amongst advanced economies by moving further upstream in global
production processes, with our exports driven more by commodities than by
concepts or components. Succeeding beyond the resources boom means
increasing value-added trade in services and other sectors – something that
will require moving beyond ‘old’ trade paradigms focusing on preferential
access for raw materials and finalised products. Trade deals that have driven
promising services sector liberalisation with China and other key trading
partners are a crucial start – but only that. The quality and competitiveness of
Australia's human capital will determine our success in adapting to this new
world.
•
th
Technology, knowledge and innovation: Australia ranks 29 out of 30 in the
OECD for collaboration, and Australia bets more on the Melbourne Cup than
the Australian venture capital industry punts on start-ups every year (Ferrier
Hodgson 2014). In these globalised supply chains Australia’s capacity to
develop, commercialise and harness good ideas will be as crucial as our ability
to absorb and adopt advances and practices from the cutting-edge of global
practice. The IGR identifies absorption of global advances as key to
sustaining growth for Australia as a net importer of technology. But
participating in the twenty-first century economy cannot simply be about
buying ideas and processes off the shelf. A renewed focus on breaking down
Page 26
silos across Australian industry, academia and Government, and in particular
addressing our poor performance on business-to-research partnerships, is
needed to develop a national capacity for collaboration that matches our
strong commitment to ensuring competition. Progress on this front would
offer opportunities not only to deliver the rates of productivity growth
forecast in the IGR, but to develop knowledge-and-tech-based industries that
can participate and compete on a global scale. Australia should be able to
build winning ideas at home, not import them all from abroad.
•
Workforce skills and planning:
These trends also raise fundamental
questions about the skill-sets Australian workers will need for the workplaces
of the future – and whether current models for linking education and training
with employment will be sufficient. Research out of the Oxford Martin School
To ensure the long-
suggests 47 per cent of the United States’ employment and 35 per cent of
term strength of
the United Kingdom’s employment is at risk of automation (Oxford Martin
our economy and
sustainability of our
School 2013). Such research does not argue technology is a job destroyer –
in fact Pew has confirmed the opposite is often true (Pew Research Centre,
2014) – but it does require Australia to think carefully about what the jobs of
wellbeing in this
the future look like, which industries we will be in and which ones we will not
challenging
be in. It also reinforces the importance of education and lifelong learning. This
environment, we
is particularly the case given Australia has entered a period of relatively high
need to make sure
unemployment (highest since August 2002) and has record levels of youth
that we are
unemployment.
counting what
matters.
To ensure the long-term strength of our economy and sustainability of our wellbeing in
this challenging environment, we need to make sure that we are counting what matters.
When it comes to capital, the imperative for Australia to attract capital in a competitive
global marketplace to drive investment and growth is clear. But economic capital is only
a small part of the overall stock of capital that underpins long-term wellbeing. The 2010
IGR also emphasised the crucial role that social, human and environmental capital play
in shaping the capabilities and choices of future generations – and ensuring that
wellbeing is sustainable over time.
This means that future wellbeing depends not just on how much machinery or financial
capital we accrue, but also on the skills and attributes we develop, the social fabric we
build and the resources and natural environment we bequeath. Australia’s strong
endowments across each form of capital has supported some of the highest living
standards in the world. Australia consistently ranks as a leading country for quality of
life, such as in the recently announced Deloitte Social Progress Index 2015 where
Australia was in the overall top 10 (Deloitte 2015). But our position at the top of the
world order is vulnerable. Sustaining this into the future will rely on our ability to factor
all forms of capital into our decision making about choices we make today, rather than
focusing solely on the kinds of capital that are easiest to measure.
Page 27
This is true at level of individual industries and businesses as well as at the level of the
national economy. Businesses are increasingly likely to support measures to broaden
measurement of capital for commercial reasons as well as due to commitment to social
and environmental sustainability. For example, in Australia, National Australia Bank is
poised to become a leader in accounting for natural capital in the agriculture sector,
strengthening ability of farmers and their financiers to understand how the stock and
quality of resources like soil and water shape long-term sustainability. Supporting
efforts to develop new measures for different kinds of capital, as well as fleshing out
notions of individual and collective wellbeing that extend beyond income and GDP, will
be crucial priorities for ensuring that economic promise outlined in IGR projections
translates into sustainable prosperity.
Climate change – budgeting for a low-carbon future
The 2015 IGR said very little about the long-term challenge that will underpin
intergenerational welfare this century: climate change. This was in marked contrast to
the previous report, which devoted an entire chapter to the subject. The effects of
climate change will be pervasive and will exacerbate the range of Australia's economic
and social challenges.
While the 2015 IGR only included a handful of cursory references to climate change and
associated environmental trends, there was one vital statement: Australia will join with
the international community to establish post-2020 targets for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in line with the international target of keeping global warming to less
than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Most disappointingly, the 2015 IGR
passed up a perfect opportunity to include a substantive discussion of how this could
be achieved. Such a discussion could have incorporated consideration of the United
Kingdom’s ‘carbon budget’ approach to monitors how emissions are tracking relative to
our immediate commitments and those that would be necessary to meet the 2 degree
target and provide guidance as to the different contributions (and associated
adjustment costs) to be expected from key sectors.
As well as providing accountability on progress towards established commitments, and
those due this October in the lead-up to COP21, this approach could have indicated
that, as with fiscal consolidation, the pace of adjustment required will become more
onerous if we delay action to meet targets already set. Crucially, addressing Australia's
climate change challenge presents opportunities for developing world-leading practice
and technology. For instance, Australia can invest in finding innovative breakthroughs
across energy efficiency, smart grids, public transport innovation and industry-scale
renewable energy provision.
In doing so Australia can ensure intergenerational
wellbeing in diverse areas ranging from smarter and more sustainable cities to a more
resilient and adaptable defence force.
Concert of Asia? Australia’s engagement in international affairs
The IGR is not intended to be a Defence or Foreign Affairs White Paper as well. However,
it would be folly to believe Australia’s decisions alone impact its intergenerational
destiny. Many of the challenges above escape the control of any one country or
Page 28
parliament. Much of Australia’s destiny depends on ongoing regional order and stability
in Asia. Without such a state of international affairs, Australia will struggle to pursue
prosperity and security at the domestic level. Hugh White attempted to start a
discussion about Australia’s role in the region in his book The China Choice, where he
advocated a Concert of Asia. While friends will disagree on the composition of the
power-sharing White proposed, it is clear that Australia requires a deeper conservation
about its role in Asia and the choices that entails for existing alliances.
Australia’s ability to sustain intergenerational wellbeing will rely heavily on its relations
with the rest of the region, and the world at large. We know this because three billion
members of the new middle class and half the world’s population will live to our north by
2030, just as borders become more porous and the ‘perfect storm’ of rising demand for
food, water and energy is increasingly exacerbated by climate change. Fostering
effective and durable policy solutions in the key areas identified in this section –
communities, cities, commerce and climate change – depends on Australia’s
international relations, its international standing and its international competitiveness.
It is by no means clear that Australia’s leaders understand the changing nature of East
Asia, how this changing geopolitical dynamic impacts us, how the diffusion of power
and increasing integration requires more active regionalism and how preserving order
and stability will require moving foreign and security policy beyond commerce, crisis
management and alliances towards a deeper and more strategic long-term framework.
Put simply: Australia needs to comprehensively engage in international affairs at a level
of sophistication rarely seen in our history. Our competing overlay of strategic
relationships require significant policy work that we are not currently undertaking. We
remain at the whim of unforseen crises and at the mercy of competing expectations by
our allies and economic partners. Without greater coherency and strategic vision in our
international affairs, our longer term prosperity and peace are inherently compromised,
with the ever-present risk that events will overwhelm us.
Our national conversation about the longer term needs to start acknowledging
fundamental regional realities. First, that traditional understandings of sovereignty are
substantially transforming. Like our key partners and neighbours alike, Australia will
need to take advantage of phenomena such as global value chains, digital technology
and the ‘internet of things’, whilst also adapting to pervasive threats such as climate
change. Federation in 1901 may have marked our entry as an independent nation into
the world, but Australia’s success in the twenty-first century will depend on its
interdependence with other nations in order to maintain stability and prosperity.
Engaging formidably in regional institutions, gathering neighbours together to reach
multilateral agreements and demonstrating leadership and proactive decision making
on key items will be pivotal to national success at home and abroad. Whilst the
Government of the day will continue to provide varying levels of leadership in our
international relations, a truly successful international policy relies also on international
linkages forged at the business level through commercial partnerships and
transactions, at the societal level through exchanges and cultural programs, and at the
family level through connecting diasporas.
Page 29
Any credible intergenerational policy framework must explicitly address the regional
realities Australia is facing whilst actively working to develop a coherent, sophisticated
doctrine to manage our position in this concert of nations. This must be a cross-party
and cross-sectoral project.
Page 30
Conclusion
The Treasurer was not wrong in attempting to use the 2015 Intergenerational Report to
kick-start a conversation about Australia's future. As this report shows, however, there
is a sizeable gap between the conversation the Treasurer has started and the
conversation the country needs.
Right now the conversation is about a budget
problem. This report shows the IGR's depiction of the problem and pathways for
overcoming it as illusory. A better place for the Treasurer to start would have been a
conversation about smart and sustainable budget repair. This report picks up this
baton to show there is a package on the table that significantly starts the job, by
prioritising the key vectors of effectiveness, balance and sustainability.
Finally, this report outlines the key elements of the conversation Australia needs about
the future. One that rises to meet the speed, scale and complexity of challenges vital
to intergenerational wellbeing but largely written into obscurity by the 2015 IGR and
other governmental processes. There are no easy answers to addressing these
challenges – we cannot hope to find them without having that conversation sooner
rather than later.
Australia cannot completely control its destiny. But we can shape it far more
constructively than the most recent IGR allows us to. When introducing the package of
legislation that introduced the Intergenerational Report as an institution of
Government, then Treasurer Peter Costello hailed it as a document that would allow the
Parliament to assess the viability and sustainability of existing policies and
assumptions. The ultimate test was to be the 'reasonableness' of the assumptions.
The view of CPD is that the reasonable person went missing with this report. It is time
to bring her back and get the conversation back on track.
Page 31
References
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2015, ‘Labor doesn't support GST changes, says Chris
Bowen’, 30 March 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4207796.htm
Australian Greens 2015, Progressive Superannuation: A system for everyone, not just the rich,
February 2014
http://greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/150225_progressive_superannuation.pdf
Australian Government 2009, Australia’s Future Tax System, December 2009
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/Final_
Report_Part_1/index.htm
Australian Government 2013, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2013-14
http://budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/myefo/html/
Australian Government 2014, Budget 2014-15, http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm
Australian Government 2014, The Financial System Inquiry 2014, December 2014
http://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/
Australian Government 2014, National Commission of Audit, March 2014
http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/index.html
Australian Government 2014, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2014-15
http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/myefo/html/index.htm
Australian Government 2015, ‘Re:Think: Tax Discussion Paper’, March 2015
http://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf
Australian Government 2015, ‘The 2015 Intergenerational Report: Australia in 2055’
http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/2015-IntergenerationalReport/HTML
Australian Government Department of Treasury 2012, ‘Distributional analysis of superannuation
tax concessions: a paper to the Superannuation Roundtable’, April 2012
http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/SuperannuationAndRetirement/Distributionalanalysis-of-superannuation-taxation-concessions
Australian Government Department of Treasury 2015, Tax Expenditures Statement 2014,
January 2015. http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/TES-2014
Australian Government Department of Treasury 2015, Understanding the economy-wide
incidence and efficiency of major Australian taxes, Treasury Working Paper 2015(1), April 2015
http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/201
5/Working%20Paper%202015%2001/Documents/PDF/TWP2015-01.ashx
Daley, J 2014, ‘Balancing budgets: tough choices we need’, Grattan Institute Report No. 2013-13,
November 2013. http://grattan.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/801_Balancing_Budgets.pdf
Deloitte 2015, Social Progress Index 2015
http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi#data_table/countries/spi/dim1,dim2,dim3
Ferrier Hodgson 2014, ‘Tech start-ups: opportunity or threat?’ September 2014
Page 32
http://www.ferrierhodgson.com/~/media/Ferrier/Files/Documents/Publications/Ferrier%20Focu
s/2014/Ferriers%20Focus%20September%202014%20%20Tech%20startups%20%20Opp
ortunity%20or%20Threat.pdf
Gorecki, S and Kelly, J 2012, ‘Treasury’s wellbeing framework’, Economic Roundup Issue 3 2012
http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue3/Report/Treasury8217s-Wellbeing-Framework
Hockey, J 2015, ‘A compact between the generations: the 2015 Intergenerational Report’,
Ministerial Statement on the 2015 Intergenerational Report,
http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/004-2015/
Hockey J 2015b, ‘Tax Discussion Paper Launch Q&A’, 30 March 2015
http://www.joehockey.com/media/transcripts/details.aspx?s=744
Hockey J 2015c, ‘Interview with Peter Van Onselen and Paul Kelly, Australian Agenda, Sky’, 6 `
http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue3/Report/Treasury8217s-Wellbeing-Framework
McAuley, I 2013, ‘Taxes: our payment for civilization’, Paper to accompany presentation to the
South Australian Council of Social Services AGM, 25 November 2013.
http://www.ianmcauley.com/academic/actcoss/sacoss2013.pdf
Oxford Martin School 2013 ‘Now for the long term: the report of the Oxford Martin Commission
for Future Generations
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/commission/Oxford_Martin_Now_for_the_Long_Ter
m.pdf
Parkinson, M 2011, ‘Sustainable wellbeing – an economic future for Australia’, The Shann
Memorial Lecture, 23 August 2011.
http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/2134/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=shann.htm
Pew Research Center 2014, ‘Digital life in 2025: AI, robotics and the future of jobs’, August 2014
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/08/Future-of-AI-Robotics-and-Jobs.pdf
Productivity Commission 2015, ‘Childcare and early childhood learning', Inquiry Report.
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare
Stewart, M, Moore, A, Whiteford, P and Grafton, R, 2015 ‘A stocktake of the tax system and
directions for reform: five years after the Henry Review’, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute,
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.
https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/201503/stocktake_report_final_web_version.pdf
Whiteford, P 2015, ‘Intergenerational report lays uneven path for tough policy choices’, The
Conversation, 6 March 2015
https://theconversation.com/intergenerational-report-lays-uneven-path-for-tough-policychoices-38295
Page 33
Page 34